The format of the Super Rugby competition is broken. Every rugby fan knows it. But what are those in charge doing about it?
Sadly, their response is a bizarre new Super 18 format.
But have no fear, I have a format which will fix most of the major problems the tournament faces. Now if we can just get the SANZAR bosses to take notice.
Problems with the current format
The tournament is unequally structured, resulting in not all teams playing each other, while others play each other twice, yet points are all accumulated in the same league. In short, the tournament lacks credibility.
The tournament is an unnecessarily long 21 weeks, with 16 regular season games for each team.
The large conference size means that halfway through the tournament the competition is effectively over for many sides out of contention for a finals spot.
Expansion of the tournament can be taken as a given, both to spread the game to new markets, and also because of political pressure from South Africa’s sixth team. This will increase the number of mismatches as these new sides struggle against established sides and lower the tournament quality.
Goals for change
An increase in number of teams, but not the amount of games is needed.
South Africa has a sixth team, there is not much to be done about that. But the expansion of the tournament to Pacific Islands, Asia and Argentina will help develop rugby in these markets. Argentina for instance is in desperate need of local sides competing in a high level tournament.
But a fairer, more credible tournament structure where each team plays each team once is a must. So, how do you increase the amount of teams, spreading the game to new markets, while at the same time maintain quality and relevance of games?
I suggest a 20 team tournament, initially divided into five pools of four teams each, which then progresses to two tiers of 10 teams each.
There will be two Atlantic pools, consisting of the six South African sides plus two Argentinian sides, and three Pacific pools, consisting of the ten established New Zealand and Australian sides plus two Asian/Pacific Island sides.
Home-and-away-games are played against each team in your pool, resulting in six games played per team. The top two teams progress to Tier-1 and the bottom two teams to Tier-2. Within these tiers a full round robin is played, similar to the Super 10.
Because matches will have already been played against the other side from a team’s pool it won’t be necessary to replay this side, resulting in a further eight matches per team. This takes the regular season games to fourteen, two less than the current Super Rugby and one less than the proposed Super 18.
This system solves the problem of the unequal league structure that currently exists, while also increasing the relevance of the matches for longer into the tournament. Each tier of ten teams will be more competitive, as teams will be more closely matched, allowing for the smoother development of new sides, as well transforming previously redundant fixtures into important clashes.
Imagine the Rebels versus the Lions for instance, with both sides now having genuine ambitions to play in the finals. No one enjoys watching their side lose week after week, so this new structure could help to bring crowds to the stadiums.
Additional benefits include a shorter tour to Australasia for the South African sides of only three weeks. There will now be four semi-final matches – two for each tier, and two finals. This is an increase in finals from five matches to six, but at the same time reducing the time for finals to two weeks. More unions will therefore have the chance to host a final.
Also, the tournament can easily be expanded to a 24 team format in the future.
See here for an excel sheet describing the typical season. I have assumed this week’s order of teams for the seeding in this example. I will summarise below also.
The tournament length will be eighteen weeks, including two bye weeks for each team and two weeks of finals. This is a reduction in three weeks from the current Super Rugby. The amount of games in a season will increase from 125 to 146, while individual teams will play only 14 regular season games.
I will describe the season of two sides that have experienced different fortunes in Super Rugby, the Crusaders and Rebels, in order to explain the season more clearly.
The Crusaders are pooled with the Brumbies, Chiefs and Pacific A. After playing home-and-away games against the other three sides (6 games) the Crusaders advance (together with the Brumbies) to Tier-1. Here they play each other side, except the Brumbies, once each. These fixtures include away games to the Bulls, Stormers, Waratahs and Hurricanes, and home games against Atlantic team A, Sharks, Force and Highlanders. If in the top four of this tier they will then play in the semi-finals, and possibly finals.
Meanwhile, the Rebels, who play home-and-away fixtures against the Blues, Force and Waratahs in their pool, advance to Tier-2. Here they play home fixtures against the Lions, Kings, Pacific A and Reds, and away games against the Cheetahs, Atlantic B, Chiefs and Pacific B.
Both sides will therefore have something to play for potentially until the very end of the tournament.
This proposed new format is more credible than current versions, shorter, more interesting, more inclusive of developing teams, and will result in a higher quality of rugby being played and enjoyed by fans.
What are your thoughts Roarers?
Confused
Guest
I agree. My point is that expansion has diluted the competition. As to how you dilute the competition? It doesn't matter. It is diluted.
Super rugby was going to expand regardless of whether SA wanted 6 franchises, the question is how woud it have expanded if SA didn't demand 6 teams?
Confused
Guest
SA have insisted on a 6th team but if they were refused they would have no other options. Where do they go outside SANZAR? Europe does not want them and will not move their seasons. Who would honestly contemplate playing rugby in SA in their summer? All three countries delude themselves on their player depth and their means to grow it.
Nobrain
Guest
Well SA has insisted that they want a 6th team in SR. In my opinion I will have a 12 teams round robin but you must qualify to get in. SA,NZ, and AUS have their own competition (Example the Currie Cup) and the top three teams for each country will get the honors of playing then next season SR. The other three teams could come from: 1-Argentina team champion from local comp, NA comp played by a USA/Canada division Champ, and one from the PI , Singapur, Japan league.
Confused
Guest
Here's an idea....How about 4 teams from each country. You could call it something like Super 12. This could really raise the quality of the competition by having fewer places up for grabs. Just like cooking if you continually keep adding ingredients the over all effect is that things becomes diluted and confused. However if you reduce then the flavor becomes concentrated. Sometimes less is more!
Owen McCaffrey
Roar Guru
I agree with you completely Chan wee. I have long thought that Super Rugby should be split into two tiers. When their are enough/too many teams they nay very well start to listen to sense and do just that. There are two main ways to do it: - Geographically - According to ability The current prevailing thinking in SANZAR is strongly towards geographical because its: - less travel so cheaper - more derbies - conferences are flexible for growth I like a split 10 team /10 team Super double round robin as you suggest. But there would be much more interest if you had a single round robin and allowed some cross-conference matches too like they do in the innovative ITM Cup format. If you allowed say 6 cross conference games...this would approximate the actual proposed SUPER 18 format anyway. There is much benefit and excitement in Tier 1 vs Tier 2 cross conference matches. I proposed this as a way to link The Rugby Championship with the IRB Pacific Nations Cup.
soapit
Guest
personally i think all test players should be excluded from super rugby. exclude all the super rugby players as well you reckon?
Harry Jones
Guest
Sounds feasible! Let's do it!
Owen McCaffrey
Roar Guru
of course not all of them but the two South African Conference idea came straight out of SARU. The only major outcome of that is that SA teams travel less. Otherwise you could have stuck with 3 Conferences for another 4 years...
44bottles
Roar Guru
That's why biltongbek hates the idea. Because it's like a cheap ripoff of the Currie Cup, with a sparse few international games.
44bottles
Roar Guru
How are there four? There's the Heineken Cup (and whatever they're calling the new replacement) and the Aviva + Top 14 + Pro 12, which are all under one tier.
44bottles
Roar Guru
Just so you know, a new indoor air-conditioned stadium opened up here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Singapore_National_Stadium One of the sports it is equipped to host is rugby. So playing conditions are bearable now. But I didn't know about the Singapore GOvernment backing it. Doesn't sound very credible.
Owen, how certain are you all these changes are upon the request of SARU? From what I have read SA and NZ wanted less derbies, everyone wanted limited travel, the only must have SARU had was a sixth franchise. The Tasman conference and SA conference came up from across the Indian ocean.
Chan Wee
Guest
@ Owen McCaffrey : This will be a mess simply because "SUPER RUGBY" at the initial stage had a vision of being an elite competition. as the numbers grow the quality is and will suffer. the best example is cricket , when due to various pressures, the ICC took Zimbabwe and Bangladesh into test cricket fold. after many moons they have done nothihng to merit their very presence among the test nations but the powers that be cannot demote them. super was best with 10 and even 12 , but the moment it went beyond the whole thing stopped being an elite competiton. the extra 3 teams have not contributed to the competiton becoming better and interesting. rather they have provided chances to other teams (who on their day took it) to amass points and look great. and with the half baked conference system (whihc looks nothing like the original used in USA games) it allows certain advantages to some teams. u need to look at the success of IPL as opposed to other mushrooms all over the world. few teams with best of the best playing over a shorter period on a very transparent calendar. they have the capacity to expand but they will not in near future. if super wants to expand they need to look at a two tier system of 8 -9 teams each, playing round-robbin on a home-away basis and have a final to decide winner. thyat is 15-17 matches per tier 30 - 34 for both. the advantage of a two tier system will be that the opponents will be more evenly matched and there will be equalitty of all externalities like travel conditions fans food etc. it will help the players as well with lesser matches , giving them time to rest and recover for tests or other commitments. more teams without quality means more one-sided matches which never impress the fans. that is why the cricket world cup is being curtailed. minnow bashing never really is fun - neither for players nor for fans.
Midfielder
Guest
Justin I struggle to think of a team sport other than cricket [which the Indians are turning into a team sport] that works not using strong domestic competitions... The concept of a higher level ... thats kinda champions league stuff in football... Basketball, Football, Baseball, Rugby League, Gridiron, AFL, Hockey all have strong domestic competitions... in rugby the French, English, SA. NZ all have strong domestic competitions... The Australian issue ... is we don't have a strong domestic rugby competition .. yet we have strong domestic competitions in RL & AFL and a steady growth in the A-League ... As a stand alone competition the Super competition is excellent but Australia as will the other countries mentioned need not to see SR as their domestic competition... alas Australia does as will the newer countries ...
Chan Wee
Guest
almost all asian countries near the equator will have their "Summer" from mid Mrach to mid June. for example around the 12- 14 of April the sun is directly above Sri Lanka and temp goes up to 40 - 42. in Sri Lanka rugger is played from May onwards and in the evenings. during april hardly any sport/ game is played because of the extreame heat. also due to being a tropical country the cloud cover is dense so the atmosphere is heavy leading to major sweating. i remember one asian championship match between sri lanka and kazakstan where the teams took water every 20 minutes (like in the footy world cup this week).
Hopperdoggy
Guest
That's a like from me. Addresses a lot of current issues and gives room for expansion. It also kind of makes NZ, AUS & SA national comps almost a natural 3rd tier if there's room for say, a couple of Argie clubs in SA, Asian/PAC Is clubs in Aus/NZ. Workable...
Owen McCaffrey
Roar Guru
In practice baloney haha all it guarantees is Two SA quarters as opposed to one at the moment. The SA teams could all get knocked out at the Quarters. If you are claiming that two home quarters will mean they will ride through to the finals, yippy. Such has been the case since the beginning of Super Rugby. Crying (not anyone here but rugby teams) about having to play away from home and win is pointless. If you cannot win away from home you don't deserve the trophy. The All Blacks regularly go up to Europe and Win and so do Australia and South Africa. Super Rugby teams in the new conference format will be rested and they are profesionals. No excuses. If my team goes to Loftus and loses I don't blame it on the draw. I bow down to the Bulls.
AdamS
Roar Guru
It's a mess because while the finals looks good on paper, it will in practice result in 2 home semis to saffas virtually guaranteeing every final will be either saffa/nz or saffa/oz. The likelyhood of a nz/oz final is remote.
John
Guest
I live in Hong Kong and regularly visit Singapore for business. Today it's 33c and 70% humidity. It is impossible to ask anyone to play top level sport in these conditions. The HK 7s are played last week of March for a good reason. Anytime after mid April it's jus too hot & humid until October. Anyone that sat melting in the stands watching the Australia v NZ game in Hk in late October will attest to that. And Singapore's proximity to the equator makes it worse.